The Queen V. Victor Aderogba (1960)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgement Report

ADEMOLA, CJF

The appellant was tried with another, one Ladejo by name, in the High Court at lbadan before Quashie-Idun, J., (as he then was) on a charge of stealing the sum of £2,725:3s:9d, property of his employers, Barclays Bank, D.C.O. At one point during the trial, the learned Senior Crown Counsel offered no further evidence against the said Ladejo, who was thereupon discharged.

The case proceeded against the appellant, who was later convicted and sentenced to a term of 5 years imprisonment with hard labour. He has now appealed against the conviction.

On 17th June, 1960, we heard his appeal. There was no appearance by the appellant, although he was served with hearing notice, nor was he rep-resented. The learned Senior Crown Counsel who appeared for the Crown had little to say in favour of the appellant and after considering his appeal, it was dismissed.

The appellant later brought it to the notice of the Court that owing to the fact that he had been transferred from one prison to another, he only received the hearing notice at llesha prison the day before the hearing of the appeal and had not the time to contact his Counsel who had been briefed to argue his appeal. On ascertaining the truth of his complaint, his appeal was reopened and when it came up for hearing on the 21st October, 1960, Chief Rotimi Williams, Q.C., appeared with Mr. Craig for the appellant.

For the purpose of this appeal it seems unnecessary to state the whole facts in the case. Suffice it to say that the appellant, who was a bank cashier, was found short of the amount of £2,725:3s:9d when his cash box, which had previously been checked with his books by Ladejo and found correct, was taken out of the strong room opened with duplicate keys and checked by the accountant in the presence of witnesses. The appellant had previously absented himself from work under the pretence that he was ill and could not be contacted. He and Ladejo were later arrested and prosecuted for stealing the amount.

The original grounds of appeal filed are as follows:-

1. That the learned trial Judge erred in law in calling the second accused to give evidence against the appellant.

2. That the Judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

At the hearing of the appeal, leave was sought and granted to argue additional grounds filed by Chief Rotimi Williams. They are as follows:-

1. The procedure adopted at the trial is irregular in that the witness Samuel Olayiwola Ladejo was called by the Court at the end of the case for the prosecution for the purpose of being examined by the learned Counsel for the prosecution and in order to rebut statement made by the appellant in Exhibit “F.”

2. The learned trial Judge was wrong on the facts in failing to ob-serve that the witness Ladejo may well have been guilty of steal-ing the money either alone or in conjunction with the appellant.

3. The learned trial Judge erred on the facts in accepting the evidence of Ladejo to the effect that when the cash box was opened on 29th April, 1959, its contents were arranged as he (Ladejo) had found them on the 17th April.

Ground 2 of the original grounds was argued with Grounds 2 and 3 of the additional grounds. Counsel argued that from the facts before the learned trial Judge, it was possible for Ladejo to have stolen the money solely or for Ladejo and the appellant together to have stolen the money. The facts of the case did not, in my view, support the view that Ladejo could have stolen the money solely because the appellant himself in his statement to the Police stated that he was present when Ladejo checked the money with his books, and there is no evidence on record that the opportunity was available for Ladejo to have had access to the money thereafter.